Obama asks Supreme Court to overturn gay marriage ban

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 6

    Jimizo

    Now that could be part of a legacy to be proud of. Moving the country into a the 21st century and away from a particular type of conservatism fuelled by Bronze Age religious views. Get this through and in 10 years most reasonable people will have forgotten it was ever controversial.

  • 3

    Steve Christian

    they said it was inconsistent for the Justice Department to have assured Congress the law was constitutional while it was being crafted in the mid-1990s only to raise questions now.

    It is inconsistent, pretty much like the entire history of discrimination in the United States. The plus side is of course, that so much of the world has remained consistently discriminatory while the U.S. has taken more steps forward than back.

    But rest assured, the conservatives especially will find an all new sub-group to discriminate against. In fact, I think its already been decided and is already well under way. Why they need to hang on to trampling gay rights to feel all smug is beyond me. Severe inferiority complex perhaps?

  • 0

    SuperLib

    It is inconsistent, pretty much like the entire history of discrimination in the United States.

    Well said.

    Why they need to hang on to trampling gay rights to feel all smug is beyond me.

    My guess is that Obama is banking on that.

  • -5

    sailwind

    It is inconsistent, pretty much like the entire history of discrimination in the United States.

    Discrimination? Seriously compared to what? Gay people were denied voting rights at one time? They were denied be able to purchase homes? Denied going to the school in there neighborhood? Had a Supreme court ruling calling for "separate but equal" accommodations for them? Separate water fountains that said "gay only"? Granted Gay people really could not be open about their sexual preferences over the years but that hardly reaches the same level as having your rights denied because of your race by law.

    Gay people wish to have their sexuality treated and respected on the same level as heterosexuality which is understandable, but a persons sex life is not some sort of a special cause that deserves any sort of special victim recognition. Somebody tells me they are gay, I say big deal thanks for sharing........... but I really could care less about what people do in the privacy of your own bedroom, it's none of my business but apparently I'm suppose to view a persons private sex life as something that is special that the law has to be changed to embrace it.

  • 7

    lucabrasi

    @sailwind

    Seeing as how "homosexual activity" was illegal in fourteen states until 2003, I'd say there's definitely been a history of outright discrimination. Without a doubt.

  • 0

    Virtuoso

    Just one more issue (of many) that will give Americans another pretext for tearing their country (and each other) apart.

  • 9

    Frungy

    sailwindFeb. 23, 2013 - 04:38PM JST

    Thank you for raising so many important points.

    Gay people were denied voting rights at one time?

    Indeed. Fear of persecution made it impossible for Gay candidates to publically identify themselves until recently, and the police beat and killed Gay public figures, making it impossible until quite recently to have Gay politicians. A very good point.

    They were denied be able to purchase homes?

    Again, correct. Many leases in the U.S. have clauses excluding "undesirables" such as gay and lesbian couples. Furthermore a gay couple who have been in a stable relationship for decades have to choose one person to hold the title deed if they buy the property, unlike a married couple who can hold it together. If the partner holding the title deed dies then the surviving partner must pay inheritance tax and is unable to merely keep living there like a normal widower would.

    Denied going to the school in there neighborhood?

    All over the country gay kids are forced to either hide their identity or are subjected to such intense bullying, that the school authorities do little or nothing to prevent, that they cannot go to school. Any number of suicides bear testimony to this fact, and there might be many, many more where the parents were unaware or didn't wish to confront their dead child's orientation.

    Had a Supreme court ruling calling for "separate but equal" accommodations for them?

    Exactly! They are allowed "civil unions", but not "marriage". Exactly a "separate but equal" situation. In a civil union (which wasn't even national, just in some states.. others forbade gay relationships entirely) one cannot access any number of things, for example hospitals only permit "close family" to visit a dying patient... not someone in a civil union. Just like the "separate but equal" sham the current legal situation is very much "separate and unequal".

    Separate water fountains that said "gay only"?

    Very much similar. Hospitals used to routinely ask about sexual habits, and special precautions were taken with homosexual patients because of the false perception that they had higher HIV rates. Gay people were often presumed to be HIV positive without any proof, and adoptive children of gay parents at some kindergartens were forbidden from playing with other children because of the risk of infection. ... the same logic behind the separate water fountains, which were premised on the idea that black people were diseased and unclean.

    Granted Gay people really could not be open about their sexual preferences over the years but that hardly reaches the same level as having your rights denied because of your race by law.

    Oh, wait, I see... you were trying to deny these things? Umm... looks like you're dead wrong.

  • 4

    Jimizo

    @Sail 'Discrimination? Seriously compared to what?' Compared to no discrimination. Quite simple, really.

  • -5

    Surf O'Holic

    How many divisive can get squeezed into one presidential term?

  • -2

    Surf O'Holic

    That should read "divisive issues".

  • -4

    sailwind

    Indeed. Fear of persecution made it impossible for Gay candidates to publically identify themselves until recently, and the police beat and killed Gay public figures, making it impossible until quite recently to have Gay politicians. A very >good point.

    Harvey Milk broke that barrier almost 40 years ago when he was elected in San Francisco in the mid-seventies. Gay politicians if they chose to be open about their private sex life have been elected before. This is also a strawman argument as my point is that gay individuals have not been denied the right to vote ever based on their sex life. African Americans have been denied the right to vote based on the color of their skin. That is real discrimination.

    Furthermore a gay couple who have been in a stable relationship for decades have to choose one person to hold the title deed if they buy the property, unlike a married couple who can hold it together. If the partner holding the title deed dies then the surviving partner must pay inheritance tax and is unable to merely keep living there like a normal widower would.

    Which differs exactly how if a male to male friendship that wasn't sexual as in to straight male partners owning property together, business partners together, what have you? They're going to in exactly in the same tax situation you describe. You suggest they should 'lie" now and game the system and call it a gay relationship to gain the legal bennies now conferred on a gay couple? Not so easy after all now is it.

    All over the country gay kids are forced to either hide their identity or are subjected to such intense bullying, that the school authorities do little or nothing to prevent, that they cannot go to school.

    I understand the concern but let's get real here. Parading around ones sexual preference and private sex life be it straight or gay is just not real popular whether it be a student or a teacher for that matter. I really do not care if the Teacher in the classroom is gay in their private life, It is none of my business, but I would care if the Teacher in the classroom made their sexual practice front and foremost before teaching because then it does become my business. This isn't a gay or straight thing when it comes to sex. I'm pretty appalled at reading articles over the years where a teacher has sex with her young students as I would think most everybody else would be to. Understand my point that this is about a private sex life and not a public sex life shouted from the rooftops and expect everyone to applaud and cheer.

    Exactly! They are allowed "civil unions", but not "marriage". Exactly a "separate but equal" situation.

    Not even close. Gay unions are different then male and female unions, the biology and the sex are different. They are separate. Biology has decreed that already you can't get away from that. The love may be the same and the intimacy may the same but they are not sexually the same. Gay unions involve a distinct and different form of sexual practice between two individuals and it is separate and it is not equal to male and female sexual practice.

    Oh, wait, I see... you were trying to deny these things? Umm... looks like you're dead wrong.

    I'm not denying that having to hide ones sexuality was not a burden or troublesome at all. And I am not denying hate crimes against gay individuals are appalling and should never ever be tolerated, or that anyone rights should ever be denied . What I am saying compared to the real horrid discrimination faced by African Americans in the American experience it pales in comparison.

  • -4

    RomeoRII

    If people with un-natural desires want to have a union then that's fine. They just need to come up with their own name for it. Marriage has already been taken.

    RR

  • 4

    slumdog

    If people with un-natural desires want to have a union then that's fine.

    The desire you seem to be claiming as 'unnatural' is in fact seen in the animal kingdom as well and is quite natural to the animals doing it. Natural desires are natural by the very definition.

    Marriage has already been taken.

    Marriage means a union between to people. Gays are people, too.

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    I actually agree with RR on this one, in part. Marriage is a religious term and I don't like the government using it. I'm 100% for the government respecting civil unions between two consenting adults for tax, legal, and benefits purposes but calling it marriage is muddying the issue and making more trouble than there needs to be. In fact, the government should stop using marriage entirely, if you want your benefits to extend to somebody else than you enter a union, if you want to establish your relationship before the eyes of God or another higher power then you get married. There, be fruitful and multiply...or adoption works too I suppose.

    Sail,

    I consider any standard that results in a reduction in ones ability to attain the legal benefits of another to be discrimination. As it stands homosexual partners are unable to get access to spousal benefits such as health insurance coverage or priority when the partner dies. In that way there is a level of discrimination.

  • 0

    cracaphat

    I'd hate to think that Obama's historical terms in office would have as its highlight getting the ban overturned. They are more pressing issues that need to be dealt with pronto.

  • -8

    realist

    Obama is becoming more of a dictator with each passing day. He uses Executove Orders to override Congress and now he gives the Supreme Court orders. He needs impeachment. Marriage is, and forever will be, between one woman.

  • -2

    Surf O'Holic

    TheQuestion, nice response. I agree. Marriage is a religious notion anyway. I respect the civil union. One of my best friends is gay and has been in a wonderful relationship for quite some time. The government should fully recognize civil unions, but marriage should be left to religion.

  • -7

    realist

    Marriage will always be between one man and one woman

  • -4

    Serrano

    I can see two men or two women living together as partners, but getting "married" is too weird.

  • -2

    sailwind

    The Question,

    I consider any standard that results in a reduction in ones ability to attain the legal benefits of another to be discrimination. As it stands homosexual partners are unable to get access to spousal benefits such as health insurance coverage or priority when the partner dies. In that way there is a level of discrimination.

    I understand the point but i really do not agree with it. As I stated long term partnerships happen all the time between two straight partners some lasting whole lifetimes since growing up together. Joint ownership of houses, silent business partners you name it, happens all the time. The only difference is it's not sexual and therefore no tax benefits or anything else involved between the partners. They pay at the single tax rate as individuals and a case I think could actually be made also that this really isn't fair to the parties involved when they intertwine finances that way on a personal friendship but on a platonic type level, but it sure isn't overt discrimination either, which is what a same sex couple is claiming is happening to them.

    I think if we grant these types of bennies at the federal level based on just sexual relations between two people going beyond male and female we are going to find ourselves in the future at the federal level granting them to everybody that forms a financial partnership in the future sex or no sex involved between the partners. As a Supreme Court case will invariably get filed and a claim made that platonic same sex partnerships are also victims of discrimination and it will be based on a same federal laws if passed. That's why I think DOMA really should be left alone and let the domestic partnership issue be worked at the state and local level. I think we will be opening up ourselves to real bad law and legislation in the future because of our shortsightedness on wanting to pass "feelgood" legislation for two same sex people in love. Because if its not done right and isn't strictly tailored its going to be abused by everyone to legally avoid taxes. And whether a liberal or a conservative when it comes to avoiding paying taxes by some legal loophole Americans are going to go for it in droves. It's in our DNA as a nation :).

    .

  • 2

    schaeffer

    "Un-natural" LOL. Would that also include having ginger hair, or black skin? It's called diversity and it's as natural as it gets. Really, some trolls on this site need to wake up and smell the coffee big time.

  • 4

    SuperLib

    Sailwind: The only difference is it's not sexual and therefore no tax benefits or anything else involved between the partners.

    Well two friends don't enter into a civil union or "friend marriage" or whatever you want to call it. There's a pretty big difference. Perhaps you feel that a gay marriage is more flippant or casual than a marriage between a man and a woman, or could easily be faked. In reality the same could be said about a marriage between a man and a woman so you'd have to be against all tax breaks for anything involving marriage.

  • -3

    Wolfpack

    lucabrasi:

    Seeing as how "homosexual activity" was illegal in fourteen states until 2003, I'd say there's definitely been a history of outright discrimination. Without a doubt.

    It's still illegal in all fifty states (57 if you are a Democrat) for a bi-sexual person to get married to a man and a woman at the same time. It's also illegal to marry your first cousin in many states. An 18 year old woman cannot marry a 17 year old man (although in some situations special exceptions are made). There is a lot of discrimination in marriage laws. So what's your point? What's not discriminatory about a law that allows only marriage between only two adults (regardless of sex?) Laws by definition make distinctions that discriminate in some manner. So now you simply want to replace one discriminatory law with another.

    Wouldn't it be better if government did not make any rules as to who can marry? If people want to make a consensual legal contract with respect to financial arrangements than that is there business. The government doesn't need to be a referee in that at all. Religious groups can have their own private rules on marriage. The government needs to stay out of everyone's bedroom - not just homosexuals.

  • -3

    Wolfpack

    @slumdog:

    Marriage means a union between to (two) people. Gays are people, too.

    That is a very simplistic way of looking at the world. Are fathers and daughters people? Well yes, of course they are. So if you do not believe that two close family members can also get married then you believe in discrimination. Or do you just think that it is unnatural?

    The desire you seem to be claiming as 'unnatural' is in fact seen in the animal kingdom as well and is quite natural to the animals doing it. Natural desires are natural by the very definition.

    But don't "natural desires" also occur in nature between animals of the same family? Doesn't it also occur between adult animals and juveniles? Don't animals also have multiple partners? Why yes - all of these statements are true as well! This is why many people believe that making an exception for gay marriage leads to the dreaded "slippery slope". Once you open up the meaning of marriage the rationale for many, many other forms of socially desirable forms of marriage discrimination begin to fall away. Marriage will in time simply lose any meaning what-so-ever. Once a man can marry another man, then can also get married to another woman at the same time, then marry his first cousin, then marry his pet parakeet - marriage becomes irrelevant (okay, I was being facetious about the parakeet).

    I don't see this as the simple black and white issue that so many here seem to believe it is. People should think it through and consider the affects on society and social well-being.

  • 2

    Frungy

    TheQuestionFeb. 23, 2013 - 09:18PM JST I actually agree with RR on this one, in part. Marriage is a religious term and I don't like the government using it.

    ... really? For decades in the U.S. people have been married in courthouses by a judge (or duly authorised representative), without a religious figure in sight. Or by an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas (yeah baby!). Marriage is not primarily a religious term anymore, nor has it been for a very long time.

    sailwindFeb. 23, 2013 - 08:14PM JST Harvey Milk broke that barrier almost 40 years ago when he was elected in San Francisco in the mid-seventies. Gay politicians if they chose to be open about their private sex life have been elected before. This is also a strawman argument as my point is that gay individuals have not been denied the right to vote ever based on their sex life. African Americans have been denied the right to vote based on the color of their skin. That is real discrimination.

    Real discrimination? Now there's a straw man. "Real" discrimination is any time the government says that it is okay for one citizen to do something, but not another. It really is that simple. Sometimes discrimination is necessary, for example denying prisoners the right to free movement, but it is still discrimination. Now back to the point. Watch the movie "Milk", and you'll see what he went through. That's discrimination. That's REAL discrimination. That's Martin Luter King level discrimination.

    Which differs exactly how if a male to male friendship that wasn't sexual as in to straight male partners owning property together, business partners together, what have you? They're going to in exactly in the same tax situation you describe. You suggest they should 'lie" now and game the system and call it a gay relationship to gain the legal bennies now conferred on a gay couple? Not so easy after all now is it.

    Well, a male-female friendship could do it. They could head down to the city hall, get a marriage license, and own the property together. Why shouldn't gay guys have the same rights as everyone else? You're just illustrating my own point for me.

    I understand the concern but let's get real here. Parading around ones sexual preference and private sex life be it straight or gay is just not real popular whether it be a student or a teacher for that matter.

    ... Now you're being ridiculous. High schools are FULL of people "parading around ones sexual preference and private sex life". Who kissed whom, who's sleeping with who, who's still a virgin and who isn't, which cheerleader is dating the captain of the football team... These are all common topics at High schools, publically discussed in the hallways, locker rooms and these days online between students. Even the suggestion that gay students should be the only ones NOT discussing their romantic lives is ridiculous in the extreme.

    I really do not care if the Teacher in the classroom is gay in their private life, It is none of my business, but I would care if the Teacher in the classroom made their sexual practice front and foremost before teaching because then it does become my business. This isn't a gay or straight thing when it comes to sex. I'm pretty appalled at reading articles over the years where a teacher has sex with her young students as I would think most everybody else would be to. Understand my point that this is about a private sex life and not a public sex life shouted from the rooftops and expect everyone to applaud and cheer.

    I agree that teachers shouldn't disclose their sex lives to their students... but married teachers are called Mrs., not Miss, and both male and female teachers who are married wear wedding rings. Furthermore, teachers generally live in the community, and no-one rocks the boat when a straight teacher is seen out on a date. Should teachers shout out, "I'm straight!!" in the classroom? ... they don't need to, it shows in a dozen little ways.

    As for teachers sleeping with students, that is a crime committed more often by straight teachers than gay teachers, so I fail to see how it has any relevance to this discussion.

    Not even close. Gay unions are different then male and female unions, the biology and the sex are different. They are separate. Biology has decreed that already you can't get away from that. The love may be the same and the intimacy may the same but they are not sexually the same. Gay unions involve a distinct and different form of sexual practice between two individuals and it is separate and it is not equal to male and female sexual practice.

    What a load of complete codswallop. Are you seriously proposing that heterosexual couples don't engage in oral or anal sex? Nonsense. Are you seriously proposing that every heterosexual couple only has sex to have children? Again, nonsense. Biology has nothing to do with it anyway, a male-to-female transgendered individual can get married to a man legally.

    I'm not denying that having to hide ones sexuality was not a burden or troublesome at all. And I am not denying hate crimes against gay individuals are appalling and should never ever be tolerated, or that anyone rights should ever be denied . What I am saying compared to the real horrid discrimination faced by African Americans in the American experience it pales in comparison.

    Gay people were one of the groups targetted in the genocide during WW2, gay people have historically been tortured and killed as far back as the middle ages, gay people are still being killed today just for their sexual orientation (or harassed and bullied into killing themselves). If you cannot see that this discrimination is just as awful as what African-American people, Jewish people, and other recognised "discriminated against" groups went through then you're clearly choosing not to see.

  • 1

    slumdog

    That is a very simplistic way of looking at the world.

    Comparing incest and being gay is like comparing apples to oranges.

    But don't "natural desires" also occur in nature between animals of the same family?

    See my above response.

    People should think it through and consider the affects on society and social well-being.

    I have and I feel there is no harm in this move and much harm on society with incest. To suggest that allowing same sex marriages will somehow lead to allowing incest is unrealistic at the very least and more potentially quite paranoid.

  • 1

    Frungy

    WolfpackFeb. 24, 2013 - 01:24AM JST

    Marriage means a union between to (two) people. Gays are people, too.
    

    That is a very simplistic way of looking at the world. Are fathers and daughters people? Well yes, of course they are. So if you do not believe that two close family members can also get married then you believe in discrimination. Or do you just think that it is unnatural?

    Discrimination has become a dirty word, but sometimes we discriminate for good reasons, for example I discriminate between the expired milk in my fridge and the new milk, because drinking the expired milk would make me awfully ill. The prohibition against close relatives marrying is backed up by good science, it tends to concentrate genetic faults and produces a much higher risk of children with serious disabilities. That is an example of good discrimination, choosing to do something because it makes people healthier and happier.

    Banning gay marriage on the other hand does nothing good. Research has shown that gay people are born gay, have different brain structures and are not "curable", they're gay for life. Denying them the right to marry just makes them unhappy and denies them safe and stable relationships and a safe legal status in the eyes of the law and society. Extending marriage to gay couples does nothing to undermine the rights, happiness or health of straight couples in any way. It is an example of bad discrimination.

  • 4

    Pukey2

    TheQuestion:

    Marriage is a religious term

    That's strange, I've across so many atheists who are married.

  • 3

    SuperLib

    Wolfpack: It's still illegal in all fifty states (57 if you are a Democrat) for a bi-sexual person to get married to a man and a woman at the same time. It's also illegal to marry your first cousin in many states. An 18 year old woman cannot marry a 17 year old man (although in some situations special exceptions are made).

    We are talking about gay people getting the same union rights and benefits as heterosexuals. Take your list and imagine all of it is OK for straight people and not OK for homosexuals.

    Laws by definition make distinctions that discriminate in some manner.

    And some laws are put in place to stop discrimination, like in real estate.

    This is why many people believe that making an exception for gay marriage leads to the dreaded "slippery slope".

    So you're not necessarily against same sex partners being allowed into hospital rooms, but you're just too worried about the threat of everyone starting to marry their 15-year old cousin? Even if your predictions are correct, which I don't believe they are, it would represent a statistically irrelevant segment of the population anyway. So give the imagination a rest.

    The government needs to stay out of everyone's bedroom

    Be sure to tell your Republican friends that when abortion is the topic.

  • 0

    Elbuda Mexicano

    Ok, gays want to "marry" and even "divorce" other gays, and lesbians I am sure want to have the same "rights" as the rest of us and join in the suffering, torment, anguish (ok, not 24/7 but sometimes marriage is a rail pain in the neck) so instead of free sex, gays and lesbians want to be "tied down" too??

  • -5

    badsey3

    Obama asks Supreme Court to overturn gay marriage ban

    a 1996 law defining marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman.

    It is a ridiculous legal argument since there is no such legal thing as "gay marriage" and hence no "gay marriage ban"

    What Libs/Globalists want is to dehumanize marriage as part of eugenics. =The family is evil and must end, You can only have one child (China) etc.

  • -3

    TheQuestion

    ... really? For decades in the U.S. people have been married in courthouses by a judge (or duly authorised representative), without a religious figure in sight. Or by an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas (yeah baby!).

    And the US has a longstanding tradition of being exceedingly christian. The way the law is written it assumes that all unions are Christian or at least Abrahamic in origin because that was the established norm. The point I'm arguing is that it would be easier to separate the blanket term marriage between its spiritual/religious connotations and the legal ones. Civil unions for the tax man, marriage certificate for the church man.

    Marriage is not primarily a religious term anymore, nor has it been for a very long time.

    In a nation where around 60% of the population say that marriage is one man one woman I'd have to question where you're getting that assertion. I support civil unions between consenting adults but according to my religion they can never be married, nor would they be considered married by most christian, jewish, or islamic establishments. As far as most of the people in the US is concerned the word marriage still carries a significant religious connotation.

  • -8

    CrisGerSan

    this was just another example of the current joke of a president overusing his position to advance his own ultra liberal agenda. Firstly he has no legal authority to bring cases to the Supreme Court, he has no standing...tho they may take it out of courtesy. Second, he is trying to force an agenda that has the support of only a small fanatical minority, most normal americans totally oppose this ridiculous idea and the entire concept of seeing deviant personal practices as allowable public policy. It is a total mis use of his power but he has done more Executive Orders than any president ever and is trying to essentially "rule" the country thru these backdoor means. I can't wait for him to be thrown out of office. He is a terrible terrible example of how badly /American Society has fallen under the control of politically motivated minorities. Let the rest of the world beware, it can happen and is in other places such as the Middle East. A balanced society has to defend itself against such subversion. I hope the Supreme court laughs and throws the request out. I expect they will.

  • 3

    Triumvere

    What Libs/Globalists want is to dehumanize marriage as part of eugenics.

    I know what these words mean individually, but when you put them together like this...

  • -3

    Steve Christian

    We could debate all day about the original definition of marriage, whether it was a meant to be between a man and woman only, or if it is a religious word, whether its eternal, or if its intent is procreation, raising children, stablizing society or whatever.

    In the end we won't get a clear answer because its different things to different people at different times.

    In the past, we have married children to other children. We have had marriages between on man and several women. We have not allowed divorce. We have forced people to marry. And yes, there have been gay marriages in the past. The meaning of the word has changed and will continue to change until the end of time. So its totally besides the point.

    The point here is tolerance. And for the sake of tolerance I would be perfectly happy to allow the religious to keep the word "marriage" and for the government to expunge the word from its documents and instead use the term "civil union" or whatever. This will serve to clarify the separation of church and state on this matter.

    But it is not strictly necessary. Its just a bone that would be nice to throw to the intolerant in the hopes that they will change their backward, small-minded and pathetic clinging to intolerance.

  • -4

    Steve Christian

    Comparing incest and being gay is like comparing apples to oranges.

    No its not. Some people just want to put gayness up on a special pedestal of its own so they don't have to deal with comparisons. People try to do this with racial and gender discrimination as well, but unfair and unjust discrimination is pretty much all comparable. A lot can also be fairly equated.

    I understand the desire to ram gay marriage through the court of public opinion, as I support gay marriage myself. But basing that on faulty reasoning is just going to mean more trouble in the future. To wit:

    The prohibition against close relatives marrying is backed up by good science, it tends to concentrate genetic faults and produces a much higher risk of children with serious disabilities.

    Frungy just made marriage dependent on procreation. Close relatives do not need to be married to make children. Nor do they need to make children to have what is, for all intents and purposes, a marriage.

    Aside, the laws are not based on good science. Its based on guesswork and unresearched perception. Risks are indeed raised the closer two people are related, but not so high that it was obvious to ancient people's as inbreeding was common. The laws of all countries and states on the subject vary so widely that its obviously not based on good science.

  • -1

    Steve Christian

    Frungy just made marriage dependent on procreation.

    Ah, yes. And my point is, what does that mean for gay couples who cannot procreate? Best not to go there. Its irrelevant. Marriage is not and should not be based on procreation.

  • 0

    sailwind

    In reality the same could be said about a marriage between a man and a woman so you'd have to be against all tax breaks for anything involving marriage.

    Actually I am. One day hopefully the entire tax code would be scrapped all of it and replaced with a flat tax period. But on your point, Gay marriage put on exactly the same plane as a traditional marriage between a man and a woman is a forced construct. It really isn't that acceptable with most people to actually view both as exactly the same. One can argue all day long as to why, activists will harp that its because of racists backwards neanderthals, while others not so radical will point out that marriage has always been a cultural construct for a recognition of a bonding of a man and a woman and should stay that way.

    The noise here and Obama is a master of it is to try and shame those that are opposed to calling a gay civil union a marriage in the same sense as a hetero union as intolerant haters, this scores political points and works are wedge issue to further divide and conquer America to vote Democrat. I for one do not care if gay people shack up and get a piece from the courthouse sanctifying the relationship, I really could care less. I do wish instead of trying to force the issue, I'd rather see mutual respect given to the fact the hetero marriage in the traditional way should be honored and not changed by the more radical side in the gay community and their far left allies. I for one also really do consider a persons sex life really does entitled them to be able to claim some sort of special recognition status that society needs to redress to make allowances for to accommodate it.

    My view simply really boils down to this, a persons tells me they are Gay I generally say good for you now shut up and get back to work.

  • 5

    Jimizo

    @Wolfpack Marrying a parakeet? I've never yet read any debate on this issue without the right trying to use the slippery slope argument. I've heard sheep, horses and dogs but this is the first bird. Not an argument. We are talking about consenting adults. The confusion surrounding tax codes is another minor issue skirting around the real issue. Gays and lesbians living in arguably the most religious industrialized country, often with a fundamentalist Evangelical slant, suffer discrimination largely based on this. It isn't the sole reason, and the posters here have had the good sense to sidestep this non-argument, but it is undeniably the largest single obstacle and will be invoked for the inevitable rabble rousing against this.

  • -1

    sailwind

    ... Now you're being ridiculous. High schools are FULL of people "parading around ones sexual preference and private sex life"

    And when it becomes so bad in the school and learning environment that it detracts other students and faculty from being to able to focus on teaching, it gets confronted and addressed and usually not in a very good way.

    What a load of complete codswallop. Are you seriously proposing that heterosexual couples don't engage in oral or anal sex? Nonsense. Are you seriously proposing that every heterosexual couple only has sex to have children? Again, nonsense.

    I'm proposing nothing of the sort. I am stating the fact that the genitals involved between a hetero couple are distinct and different than the genitals involved with a same sex couple and that is just reality. It's that very genital sameness and the way they use it in sex that Gay rights advocates base their whole victimhood status on, I'm just acknowledging the obvious.

    Gay people were one of the groups targetted in the genocide during WW2, gay people have historically been tortured and killed as far back as the middle ages, gay people are still being killed today just for their sexual orientation (or harassed and bullied into killing themselves).

    If your going global, You do know these type of examples could also apply to those that call themselves Christians in the historical past and even today in Muslim countries. But just to clarify I stated clearly that in the American experience Gay individuals were not discriminated close to the level that African Americans were in the U.S.

  • -1

    Frungy

    TheQuestionFeb. 24, 2013 - 03:47AM JST

    ... really? For decades in the U.S. people have been married in courthouses by a judge (or duly authorised representative), without a religious figure in sight. Or by an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas (yeah baby!). And the US has a longstanding tradition of being exceedingly christian. The way the law is written it assumes that all unions are Christian or at least Abrahamic in origin because that was the established norm. The point I'm arguing is that it would be easier to separate the blanket term marriage between its spiritual/religious connotations and the legal ones. Civil unions for the tax man, marriage certificate for the church man.

    That was the established norm... a hundred years ago. Move on, things have changed. Divorce also wasn't possible a hundred years ago in most religions, but people have taken to that like a duck to water. Things change.

    Marriage is not primarily a religious term anymore, nor has it been for a very long time. In a nation where around 60% of the population say that marriage is one man one woman I'd have to question where you're getting that assertion. I support civil unions between consenting adults but according to my religion they can never be married, nor would they be considered married by most christian, jewish, or islamic establishments. As far as most of the people in the US is concerned the word marriage still carries a significant religious connotation.

    I'd question where you got this statistics, it sounds completely made up. Oh, wait it, is. The majority of the U.S. population has been in favour of gay marriage for the last three years at least. You're clearly out of touch.

    Steve ChristianFeb. 24, 2013 - 09:58AM JST

    The prohibition against close relatives marrying is backed up by good science, it tends to concentrate genetic faults and produces a much higher risk of children with serious disabilities.

    Frungy just made marriage dependent on procreation. Close relatives do not need to be married to make children. Nor do they need to make children to have what is, for all intents and purposes, a marriage.

    Nonsense logic. I did not make marriage dependent on procreation, what I did was point out that heterosexual relationships normally produce children (an average of 2.1 per woman in 2010). If a closely related couple submitted to voluntary sterilization and took their case to a judge I'm sure he'd agree that there should be no impediment to their marriage since the law is based on a desire to mimimise birth defects.

    Aside, the laws are not based on good science. Its based on guesswork and unresearched perception. Risks are indeed raised the closer two people are related, but not so high that it was obvious to ancient people's as inbreeding was common. The laws of all countries and states on the subject vary so widely that its obviously not based on good science.

    ... the noble families in Europe would disagree. Hemophilia (a genetic condition carried down the mother's side that results in blood not being able to clot and bleeding not stopping naturally), Schizophrenia (another condition with a strong genetic component), Hasburg Lip (a misalignment of the jaw and lip), just to mention a few of the more notable genetic conditions caused by inbreeding. These deformities were obvious and commented on as hereditary as far back as 800 years ago, and were a big part of the reason why the European noble families tried to marry as far outside their own bloodline as possible... while constrained by the political necessity of marrying other European nobility.

    The fact that you're trying to deny this is ... well, I assume you're a hollow earther and a creationist too.

    Oh, and while laws may vary from state to state in the U.S. every state (except Rhode island) has some sort of law forbidding incest, and they all share the fact that first and second degree blood relationships (i.e. nieces and nephews) is illegal in all states, and first cousins are forbidden in most states. Your statement that laws vary "so widely that its obviously not based on good science" is just ridiculous, as are all of your arguments.

  • -1

    sailwind

    Frungy,

    I have a serious question for you and all the other Liberals that usually post here dealing with overall morality and views on discrimination.

    There is plenty of evidence that being gay may in fact be genetic and that soon the gene can be isolated to determine if the unborn child in the womb would be gay or not if conceived. I do happen to believe there is a genetic component involved myself. We as a society currently allow a couple whose child has been identified as having Downs syndrome to be able to abort the child. Do you or others have any qualms if a couple through an identified gay gene decided to abort that fetus based on the fact they did not want a child who could never produce them grandchildren in the future? Or would you and other Liberals be incensed that a healthy fetus was aborted because of this reason?

    These are the types of moral dilemmas that we as a society will be looking at in the future Frungy.

  • -1

    Frungy

    sailwindFeb. 24, 2013 - 01:40PM JST I have a serious question for you and all the other Liberals that usually post here dealing with overall morality and views on discrimination.

    Serious question, serious answer.

    There is plenty of evidence that being gay may in fact be genetic and that soon the gene can be isolated to determine if the unborn child in the womb would be gay or not if conceived.

    First a scientific point of clarification. Conception happens when the sperm meets the egg. Prior to conception there's only a probability that the child might be gay, just like people with certain blood types have a high probability of having a Downs syndrome kid. Nothing is certain until after the child is conceived, and even then conditions in the womb during pregnancy can affect whether a gene expresses itself and to what extent it expresses itself. The question is far more complex than you're portraying it, and normally one cannot be certain until quite late into the pregnancy, not because we lack the technology to test, but because the situation is fluid.

    I'll deal with your question as asked though, assuming that we are able to measure all the factors and predict with a high degree of certainty.

    I do happen to believe there is a genetic component involved myself. We as a society currently allow a couple whose child has been identified as having Downs syndrome to be able to abort the child. Do you or others have any qualms if a couple through an identified gay gene decided to abort that fetus based on the fact they did not want a child who could never produce them grandchildren in the future? Or would you and other Liberals be incensed that a healthy fetus was aborted because of this reason? These are the types of moral dilemmas that we as a society will be looking at in the future Frungy.

    If it was a Republican state you would have no choice at all, because they disapprove of abortion under almost all conditions, including rape. The parents would have no choice, the doctor would have no choice.

    if it was a Liberal state then it would be a private matter between the doctor and the parents. The doctor would have the right to refuse on grounds of conscience, but the parents could shop around until they found a doctor who would perform the abortion if that was what they wanted.

    I'd rather live in a Liberal future, where some people might do things I disapprove of, but they would have their right to privacy and the right to do as they saw fit in private matters. Would I personally abort a child who I knew to be gay? No. Would I participate in the abortion of a child simply because they were going to be gay? No. Would I support a government who interfered in the rights of parents to choose? No, because at the end of the day I'd rather see a child grow up in a loving family that supported and accepted their child than in a family that would abort their child simply because of the child's future sexual orientation.

    Does that answer your question?

  • 1

    slumdog

    No its not. Some people just want to put gayness up on a special pedestal of its own so they don't have to deal with comparisons.

    Sorry, that is just plain ridiculous. Being gay and committing incest are two completely and very different things. No need to muddy the waters.

    I understand the desire to ram gay marriage through the court of public opinion, as I support gay marriage myself.

    A quite large section of the population does not have the same rights as their counterparts. It is not a desire to ram anything, it is merely a common sense wish for justice.

    But basing that on faulty reasoning is just going to mean more trouble in the future.

    Possibly. However, basing dissent against gay marriage on meaningless comparisons with incest does nothing for the future of anyone.

    Best to stick with the topic itself.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Frungy,

    Thank you for the extremely well thought out reply. It is greatly appreciated. A complicated question and a very lucid and respected reply on your part. It does answer my question not quite a hundred percent but enough to realize that you do grasp that extreme positions and either side do no one any favors on social issues and there are other moral considerations at play here to consider. Issues that use to be more or less the domain of a religious and spiritual type guidance nature but less so now as religious influences continue to be less and less relevant in modern western society and thought.

    To be honest I believe my personal views are going to be on the wrong side of history eventually on Gay marriage. Not saying that they're aren't valid as I believe strongly that the two parent model of a male and female staying together and raising children as the best way to avoid poverty and whole hosts of societal ills that now plague us as marriage over the generations has become less and less relevant as being seen as a long term bonding contract between a man and a woman to raise children.

    Marriage has fallen over the past 50 years or so to a generational gap where the younger generation views it as romantic bonding and once the romance goes away so really does the commitment really to keep the marriage a going concern. Marriage like everything else in life in order to be successful is going to take work and effort or as Rodney Dangerfield famously said "Marry a good cook, the sex will eventually go away but your always gonna be hungry". But the effort to stay 'with the good cook" is just not the same as it was in past generations, its just the way things really are today.

    My view is I just don't see adding gay marriage on a totally equal footing as a straight marriage as not really strengthening a traditional hetero marriage at all, but changing the traditional marriage concept even further to an even more wholly romantic view of it and eventually continuing to turn into something else that I'm not sure anybody can really be able to discern at this point and can say with a reasonable degree of certainty where it will end up being.

    As I've stated many times in the past and on this thread, I have no desire or would ever think to deny a same sex couple the ability to shack up and form a union duly recognized by the state and confer benefits pretty much on the same par as a hetero marriage. I do have issues with putting it on the exact same plane as a hetero marriage and though many feel its well intentioned, my view it will just weakened traditional hetero marriage in the long run through unintended consequences not readily foreseen right now. The danger to me is that traditional marriage will soon devolve so much that in the future that it really does become a "tax convenience" to be able to just discard once the sex and romance goes away. I see no real good to society in the long run to do things to continue this type of trend just based on how bad things are with the plague of single parent homes and poverty and no prospects for a better future in to many American homes as it is. Just my personal views on this very sensitive subject.

    Once again I appreciate the well though out and rational response you gave to my original question and I respect your position 100 percent on the reply.

  • 0

    Frungy

    sailwindFeb. 24, 2013 - 07:56PM JST Frungy, Thank you for the extremely well thought out reply. It is greatly appreciated.

    And I deeply appreciate a civil and considered response, so rare in this day and age.

    It does answer my question not quite a hundred percent but enough to realize that you do grasp that extreme positions and either side do no one any favors on social issues and there are other moral considerations at play here to consider. Issues that use to be more or less the domain of a religious and spiritual type guidance nature but less so now as religious influences continue to be less and less relevant in modern western society and thought.

    I believe that religion will always remain relevant on a personal level, but we no longer live in culturally or religiously homogenous socieities. Consider for a moment "Christianity". Put a Protestant and a Mormon in the same room to discuss morality, and if they resort to religion as their only point of reference then there is bound to be an ungodly row, because even within the same religion the different divisions disagree deeply on any number of key points. As globailzation continues and you're in the same arena as Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc... well, using religion to justify anything that affects anyone other than yourself becomes an increasinly invalid position. It isn't that religion is becoming less relevant, merely that it is becoming more of a personal thing than a societal thing, and in my opinion that isn't a bad thing.

    To be honest I believe my personal views are going to be on the wrong side of history eventually on Gay marriage. Not saying that they're aren't valid as I believe strongly that the two parent model of a male and female staying together and raising children as the best way to avoid poverty and whole hosts of societal ills that now plague us as marriage over the generations has become less and less relevant as being seen as a long term bonding contract between a man and a woman to raise children.

    Do I think that gay parents will magically be great parents and will avoid all the mistakes that other parents make? No, gay people are humans just like everyone else. There's already been the first gay divorce. However do I think they'll be any worse than heterosexual parents? No, I think they'll probably try their best just like the rest of us. Where I do think that gay parents might do better than heterosexual parents is that when they have childen it'll be a choice, not an accident or a teenage miscalculation. Just something to consider.

    My view is I just don't see adding gay marriage on a totally equal footing as a straight marriage as not really strengthening a traditional hetero marriage at all, but changing the traditional marriage concept even further to an even more wholly romantic view of it and eventually continuing to turn into something else that I'm not sure anybody can really be able to discern at this point and can say with a reasonable degree of certainty where it will end up being.

    Marriage is a ceremony that carries with it certain societal benefits (respectability, the public recognition of the relationship, etc.), legal benefits (the right to own property together, tax benefits, the right to sign agreements that are binding on you and your partner, etc), it can be a religious rite, and of course it can be reduced to a romantic gesture. That some people are using it as a romantic gesture does not remove the other benefits. I can see your point, but the erosion of marriage as an institution is something that heterosexuals started themselves, and will continue themselves without any need to blame homosexuals for the erosion of the term.

    As I've stated many times in the past and on this thread, I have no desire or would ever think to deny a same sex couple the ability to shack up and form a union duly recognized by the state and confer benefits pretty much on the same par as a hetero marriage. I do have issues with putting it on the exact same plane as a hetero marriage and though many feel its well intentioned, my view it will just weakened traditional hetero marriage in the long run through unintended consequences not readily foreseen right now. The danger to me is that traditional marriage will soon devolve so much that in the future that it really does become a "tax convenience" to be able to just discard once the sex and romance goes away. I see no real good to society in the long run to do things to continue this type of trend just based on how bad things are with the plague of single parent homes and poverty and no prospects for a better future in to many American homes as it is. Just my personal views on this very sensitive subject.

    And as I said above, heterosexual couples started this trend towards marrying and then divorcing casually all on their own. In no way can the blame be laid at the door of homosexual couples, who just want the right to exercise the same freedoms.

    Once again I appreciate the well though out and rational response you gave to my original question and I respect your position 100 percent on the reply.

    No problem. Have a great week.

  • -1

    Steve Christian

    Your statement that laws vary "so widely that its obviously not based on good science" is just ridiculous, as are all of your arguments.

    Rude much? Suddenly all of my arguments are ridiculous? In fact, you just made the most absurd statement of the year with that.

    24 US states prohibit first cousin marriage dude. 7 permit with special circumstance. You call that continuity? Don't answer that. I don't want any more needless rude posturing over this side issue anyway.

    I did not make marriage dependent on procreation

    Yes, you did. You just don't want to accept it. If laws against incest are rightly, as you insist, barred on the basis of the procreation result, then its consistent that others will do the same for gay marriage. In other words, if you base the entirety of legally banning one form of marriage on procreation, then it will be done for other forms as well. In other words, if you legally ban one form of marriage on the demand for healthy procreation, then others will do the same for gay marriage, which also will not result in healthy procreation, at least not directly.

    No one should ever assume that a married couple will or will not procreate, nor determine their right to marry based on anything to do with procreation. A government accepting a marriage is not a demand to procreate, nor should it be.

    A cornerstone of the arguments against gay marriage is that a gay couple cannot procreate. In no way should we lend that argument credence by making an assumption of procreation among married people.

  • -1

    TheQuestion

    That was the established norm... a hundred years ago. Move on, things have changed. Divorce also wasn't possible a hundred years ago in most religions, but people have taken to that like a duck to water. Things change.

    That was an established norm 40 years ago, things change but they typically change very slowly and over long spanses of time.

    I'd question where you got this statistics, it sounds completely made up. Oh, wait it, is. The majority of the U.S. population has been in favour of gay marriage for the last three years at least. You're clearly out of touch.

    My statistic comes from a Rasmussen poll conducted in 2009 that actually states 68% of respondents identify marriage as between a man and a woman and not merely two consenting individuals.

    If the majority of people are in favor of it why does it keep getting voted down in most states including California? Some states have even gone the opposite direction. The strongest showings I can find state that, at most, 51% of the population favors it based on a Pew Poll last October.

    I don't think you get it. I'm 98% on your side. Gays should have access to all the rights and privileges of straight couples, I support that, but because of the religious connotation behind the word marriage, both to my church and to most of the churches in the US, I cannot condone the union being recognized as marriage. I'd actually be for ALL future unions between consenting adults be called civil union and leaving the marriage part to the churches.

  • 1

    Frungy

    Steve ChristianFeb. 24, 2013 - 10:14PM JST

    24 US states prohibit first cousin marriage dude. 7 permit with special circumstance. You call that continuity? Don't answer that. I don't want any more needless rude posturing over this side issue anyway.

    You're the one trying to equate some states drawing the line at first cousins, and all states (with the exception of Rhode island) drawing the line at niece/nephew with the science behind incest being "not good". Your statement was misleading and I was right to call you on it.

    I did not make marriage dependent on procreation

    Yes, you did. You just don't want to accept it. If laws against incest are rightly, as you insist, barred on the basis of the procreation result, then its consistent that others will do the same for gay marriage. In other words, if you base the entirety of legally banning one form of marriage on procreation, then it will be done for other forms as well. In other words, if you legally ban one form of marriage on the demand for healthy procreation, then others will do the same for gay marriage, which also will not result in healthy procreation, at least not directly.

    I was exceptionally clear that I was only discussing incest in terms of illustrating that there are valid forms of discrimination, i.e. those aimed at preventing harm, and that incest laws were an example of a valid form of discrimination. If you cannot understand that I recommend you go and re-read my earlier post. I went an re-read it and there is no room for misunderstanding... unless perhaps your parents shared your lack of regard for incest laws.

  • -2

    Wolfpack

    @Jimzio:

    Marrying a parakeet? I've never yet read any debate on this issue without the right trying to use the slippery slope argument. I've heard sheep, horses and dogs but this is the first bird. Not an argument. We are talking about consenting adults.

    I clearly stated that the parakeet thing was not serious. I guess you forgot to finish reading the paragraph before dashing off a baseless rebuttal. Here is the full quote of what I wrote:

    Once a man can marry another man, then can also get married to another woman at the same time, then marry his first cousin, then marry his pet parakeet - marriage becomes irrelevant (okay, I was being facetious about the parakeet).

    The slippery slope argument remains valid in the case of homosexual marriage. Once you make exceptions to the commonly accepted rule, then all other exceptions must also be questioned as well to see if they meet the arguments put forth for the new marriage standard. Even if you assume only to allow any marriage between any two consenting and loving adults - there are a lot of combinations in there that are forbidden.

    Can anyone approving of homosexual marriage make an argument against marriage among three or more people? If a gay man can marry another gay man, can a bisexual man marry another man and a women? As-long-as they are consenting adults there is now no logical basis for denying polygamous marriage for bisexuals. This is the slippery slope - and it doesn't end with bisexuals either.

  • -1

    Wolfpack

    @Frungy:

    If it was a Republican state you would have no choice at all, because they disapprove of abortion under almost all conditions, including rape. The parents would have no choice, the doctor would have no choice.

    You generally make very well reasoned arguments but this one is clearly false. There are quite a few states that are completely controlled by Republicans but in none of them is it illegal to preclude abortion due to rape. A few whacko's seem to believe that but they are just that, a few whacko's.

  • -2

    Wolfpack

    Comparing incest and being gay is like comparing apples to oranges.

    This is a distinction without a difference. You stated this,

    "Marriage means a union between to people. Gays are people, too."

    Yes of course homosexuals are people just like anyone else. I'm also saying that first cousins are as well, so are brothers and sisters, mothers and sons. You and I may consider this disgusting and wrong. However, there are also many people that think homosexuality is disgusting (even heterosexuals that support gay marriage wouldn't be involved in a homosexual relationship because it disgusts them). So now you are wanting to say that other possible marriage combinations cannot also enjoy the same rights as other consenting adults. If society can no longer arbitrarily prohibit homosexual marriage, then society must also open itself up to all other kinds as well.

    You can also include bisexuals that may desire to be in a marriage between three or more people instead of two. How about the arbitrary age restriction? There are people in this world that are involved in these types of relationships - whether you want to accept that or not. Why are they now being discriminated against - particularly if they are - as you said - "people too"?

  • 0

    Jimizo

    @Wolfpack I've heard the same 'I was being facetious' line when the right predictably brings up animals ( or in your case a bird ). The aim is clear - to ridicule. Grubby.

  • 0

    slumdog

    This is a distinction without a difference. You stated this

    There is a significant genetic risk involved with incest. No such risk is involved with being gay. There is a huge difference between the two subjects and your examples show this to be true.

    As you do here:

    Yes of course homosexuals are people just like anyone else. I'm also saying that first cousins are as well, so are brothers and sisters, mothers and sons.

    You are bringing up a whole bunch of other subjects instead of dealing with the subject at hand. The rules for restrictions on age and family members is for many reasons, one of the most important is protecting children and prevent genetic disorders. Homosexuality does not have anything to do with them.

    As to marriage to more than one person, if that is what society were to deem appropriate, I would have no problem with it. I would still do what I preferred to do anyway.

    The slippery slope argument does not work. It is wholly possible to make laws for specific things without having the whole world come crashing down on us.

  • 1

    slumdog

    Two adults of the same sex should have the same rights have those of different sexes. Except for bringing up other subjects, no one has come up with any reason why they should not have the right to get married and enjoy the same rights as heterosexual married couples. If you wish to debate it, debate the actually subject.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    sailwind: Marriage has fallen over the past 50 years or so to a generational gap where the younger generation views it as romantic bonding and once the romance goes away so really does the commitment really to keep the marriage a going concern. Marriage like everything else in life in order to be successful is going to take work and effort or as Rodney Dangerfield famously said "Marry a good cook, the sex will eventually go away but your always gonna be hungry". But the effort to stay 'with the good cook" is just not the same as it was in past generations, its just the way things really are today.

    I'm sure there are some who take the easy way out with a divorce, but I'm also guessing there a quite a few silent marriages where they stay together long after the love has died simply because they don't know anything else. Staying in a marriage and rekindling the flame is admirable, but coming home and spending all of your time in two separate rooms isn't the marriage you're thinking of. Maybe the higher divorce rates are actually of evidence of people being more honest with themselves and actually doing something about it.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    Wolfpack: Can anyone approving of homosexual marriage make an argument against marriage among three or more people?

    Other than the fact it's with 3 or more people? And the fact that it's such a tiny percentage of the population who wold actually entertain the thought, meaning there is zero chance for any kind of traction on this issue?

    And this is really what you are afraid of?

    The things you're saying are nothing new. Remember gays in the military? Shall we go back and look at the arguments against it at the time? The doomsday predictions never came about. I'm sure when women were given the right to vote there were men walking around saying, "Oh, great, now let's just give dogs the right to vote, too. Or the kids."

    I really believe that people don't want equal rights for gay partners because they generally don't approve of homosexuality and the real fear is that it's becoming more acceptable. That's what they are fighting against.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Maybe the higher divorce rates are actually of evidence of people being more honest with themselves and actually doing something about it.

    The evidence that I see is that higher divorce rates have led to higher rates of poverty, single parent households not really equipt at all to go at it alone and is undeniably horrible on any children involved in a family that is breaking up. I am also not advocating that bad marriages stick together. There are relationships that just weren't meant to be long term and should end. What I am saying that there is much to be said for doing the hard work to keep a marriage together no matter if times are good or bad, its a reward in itself for the two partners involved.

    I am also advocating that the stable two parent family with a *mother and a father *has, is and always will be the best way for our human species to raise children, nurture them and give them the best chance for success. And since this usually involves the word "marriage" to start this wonderful thing called of becoming a family we as a society should be looking at ways as how to try and strengthen traditional male / female marriage and not at how it can be modified or changed to suit the Gay activists who are trying to force society to accept that stable Gay relationships are exactly the same as a traditional male and female marriage. They're not the same despite to most rabid attempts to try and make it so by liberal posters. I'll make it easy for folks to understand the difference, toilet seats in a male to male relationship being left up is never going to be an issue in a same sex relationship.

  • -2

    Wolfpack

    @Jimizo:

    I've heard the same 'I was being facetious' line when the right predictably brings up animals ( or in your case a bird ). The aim is clear - to ridicule. Grubby.

    No sense of humor - not to mention an unwillingness to fully address the issue or consider it's impact beyond the immediate ideological gain. I do not think the government should interfere with either gay or heterosexual relationships. At one point I thought that supporting families was an important social role for government. But these days, the government does everything it possibly can to undermine stable families. Therefore, I would rather the government get out of endorsing or prohibiting marriage. But until they do, I will continue to point out that homosexual marriage does not make marriage equal for all consenting adults - however that term is defined.

    Your aim is clear, to ignore the effects of changing marriage because you do not wish to face the negative impact that Leftist social policies have had on society for half a century. You can't blame conservatives for the break down in families and the fact that such a huge percentage of children grow up in poverty because they have only one parent. Liberalism reaps what it sows.

  • -1

    slumdog

    You can't blame conservatives for the break down in families and the fact that such a huge percentage of children grow up in poverty because they have only one parent. Liberalism reaps what it sows.

    You cannot blame homosexuals who want to have equal rights to marriage for this, either.

  • -3

    Wolfpack

    @slumdog:

    There is a significant genetic risk involved with incest. No such risk is involved with being gay. There is a huge difference between the two subjects and your examples show this to be true.

    There is a risk. But given that the Left has made sure that birth control and abortion are widely available this risk is completely moot. But let's not look exclusively at any one alternative as there are many, many more potential marriage combinations that are currently prohibited besides incest.

    I am very much resigned to the fact that marriage as it has been known for centuries is now over. Homosexual marriage is here to stay - I have no doubt about that. I also know that it makes all other forms of marriage discrimination less and less defensible. Before homosexual marriage became socially acceptable there was a consensus that marriage was special because it had very specific social benefits. Chief among these was to raise the next generation. Although homosexuals could adopt children, the vast majority do not. And since they can not have children of their own they largely do not participate in raising societies next generation. That consensus is broken never to return.

    Marriage is no longer the very special institution that it was. I guess this has been coming since the beginning of the demise of marriage in the 1960's and the me-generation's rather intentional goal of undermining it. Cause --> effect.

  • -4

    Wolfpack

    @SuperLib:

    And this is really what you are afraid of?

    I'm only afraid of the effect on society and how the continued undermining of marriage is having such a terrible impact on families and children in particular. The idea of homosexual marriage is just the latest in a decades long attack on societies underpinnings.

    I'm sure when women were given the right to vote there were men walking around saying, "Oh, great, now let's just give dogs the right to vote, too. Or the kids."

    Seriously?

    I really believe that people don't want equal rights for gay partners because they generally don't approve of homosexuality and the real fear is that it's becoming more acceptable. That's what they are fighting against.

    I think there is a lot of truth to that sentiment. From my perspective, the writing is on the wall with respect to the social acceptability of homosexuality. I am not against homosexuals being treated the same as any other person in the eyes of the government. The government should allow any two or more people to make a civil contract among themselves in order to promote their self-interests. The government can call it marriage but it isn't. Calling it that will not change reality. You cannot make the color white become black just by redefining the word.

    I general oppose calling civil unions between homosexuals 'marriage' because such a union does nothing to promote society other than the narrow self-interests of the particular people involved. There is no real benefit for society overall - the next generation does not come from homosexual unions. That's just biology.

    The only change in law that I can conceive of that allows for everyone to be treated equally is for government to neither endorse or prohibit marriage for anyone. The government should simply not use the word 'marriage'. In the eyes of government, all unions among people are just that, a civil union. Marriage is then left up to one's religion. Some churches will endorse homosexual marriage and some won't. I am fine with that because a private organization cannot force me to accept something that I find personally revolting. Let's leave marriage to the church for everyone and get the government out of the marriage business altogether.

  • 0

    slumdog

    There is a risk.

    Please explain the genetic risks to gay marriage.

  • 0

    slumdog

    I'm only afraid of the effect on society and how the continued undermining of marriage is having such a terrible impact on families and children in particular.

    Why would you ever think gay marriage would have any effect on heterosexual marriage?

    You still have not come up with a reason for being against gay marriage. You certainly have come up with reasons to be against a whole slew of other things. However, you have yet to make an argument against gay marriage.

  • 0

    AkariYoshida

    A marriage is a bonding of a man and woman under God. If gay people would like to be joined together they need something else. I have nothing against them personally i just dont agree with their views. The same can go for some of my friends too

  • -2

    realist

    Marriage is, and always will be, between one man and one woman. Anything outside that is just not natural. Part of the institution of marriage is for the procreation of children and the continuation of the human race. Two women or two men in a "married" relationship can never produce children naturally, therefore it is a nonsense to have homosexual marriage. I am all for equal rights under the law for homosexual couples who are in a loving and committed monogamous relationship, call it a Civil Partnership if you wish, but "marriage" it is not, and the majority of people in the majority of countries of the world agree. Aggressive homosexuals with an agenda to promote like this is doing more harm to their cause than good. The natural order of the universe and mankind is One Man plus One Woman = Marriage.

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • Import and Export Trading Assistant

    Import and Export Trading Assistant
    ECO Resource、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥2.5M ~ ¥3.5M / Year 経験・前給与を考慮の上、要相談
  • Program Assistant

    Program Assistant
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ
  • Recruitment / HR Generalist

    Recruitment / HR Generalist
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ
  • IELTSインストラクター

    IELTSインストラクター
    Berkeley House Language Center / バークレーハウス語学センター、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥3,500 / Hour Negotiable
  • Bilingual Administrative Staff

    Bilingual Administrative Staff
    Star Kids International Preschool、Tokyo
    Salary: Salary negotiable Depending on experience

More in World

View all

View all